10-04-15 Fine v Sheriff (09 A827) Press Release US Supreme Court Motion to Intervene and Support Requests s

8/9/2019 10-04-15 Fine v Sheriff (09 A827) Press Release US Supreme Court Motion to Intervene and Support Requests s

1/34

Case No 09-A827

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

______________

RICHARD I. FINE,

Petitioner,

v.

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent.

______________

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals______________

VERIFIED MOTION TO INTERVENE

JOSEPH ZERNIK

In Pro Se

1853 Foothill Blvd

La Verne, CA

Mail:PO Box 526

La Verne, CA 91750Phone:323.515.4583Fax: 323.488.9697

Email


2/34

ii

Table of Contents

Notice of Motion & Motion 1

A. Points & Authorities 1

B. Claims 5

C. Case Status 7

D. Request For Intervention & Prayer for Relief 8

Certificate of Compliance 10

Statement of Verification 11

Proof of Service & Certificates of Mailing 11

List of Appendices

Appendix I: Notices of intent to intervene and attempts to confer

a) Attorney Paul Beach - Notice and requests for clarifications

b) Sheriff Leroy D Baca Notice and attempt to confer

c) LASC Notice and attempt to confer

d) Richard I Fine Notice and attempt to conferAppendix II: Table 1 Summary of cases of Richard I Fine and Joseph Zernik

Appendix III: Sheriffs Department: Richard I Fine, Booking #1824367

a) January 8, 2010 Records that were provided by the Sheriff in response to

inquiry by Los Angeles County Supervisor, the Hon Michael Antonovich.

Appendix IV: Sheriffs Department:Joseph Zernik, Booking #2235341, #1343449.

a) Multiplicity of false arrests and booking records.

b) Complaint by Dr Zernik regarding his arrests and jailing.

Appendix V: Sheriffs Department: Inmate Information Center

a) Data survey, inmate Jose Martinez

b) Data survey, inmate Jose Rodriguez

c) Data survey, inmate John Smith

d) Data survey, inmates of consecutive booking numbers


3/34

iii

e) Data survey, inmates Jose Martinez, Jose Rodriguez comparison of data in

VINE and in Inmate Information Center.

f) Data survey, inmate Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk

Appendix VI: Registrar/Recorder: Grant Deed #20072759874

a) Opinion Letter of highly decorated fraud expert, FBI veteran James Wedick

Appendix VII: LASC:Marina v LA Couty (BS109420) false judgment records

pertaining to arrest and imprisonment of Richard Fine

a) March 4, 2009 Removal/Remand Order.

b) March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt

Appendix VIII: LASC: Samaan v Zernik(SC087400) false judgment records pertainingto the taking of Dr Zerniks property for private use with no compensation at all

a) August 9, 2007 Judgment and August 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary

Judgment;

b) November 9, 2007 Order Appointing Pasternak Receiver;

c) November 9, 2007 Transcript

d) November 21, 2007 Order to Sheriff to evict Zernik from his own home and

property, to the degree that it was possible in an order like unflawful detainer

after entry of judgment

e) November 21, 2007 Transcript of ex parte proceeding

f) December 7, 2007 Indemnity Agreement to Mara Escrow, a subsidiary of Old

Republic International.

g) December 7, 2007 Transcript of ex parte proceeding #1

h) December 7, 2007 Transcript of ex parte proceeding #2

Appendix IX: LASC: Samaan v Zernik(SC087400) exerpts from January 7, 2010

Register of Actions

Appendix X: LASC: Correspondence with the Court re: Access to court records

Appendix XI: USDC-CADC: False Appearances by Counsel

a) March-April 2010 Correspondence with California Judicial Council, in attempt

to ascertain the nature of involvement of Attorney Kevin McCormick as


4/34

iii

counsel in Fine v Sheriff(2:09-cv-01914), and Attorney Sarah Overton as

counsel inZernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550).

b) Complaints filed with Office of Comptroller of the Currency against Bank of

America Corporation regarding false appearance of counsel.

Appendix XII: USDC-CADC and USCCA9th: Integrity of Court records

a) March 25, 2010 Request for expert opinion

b) March 27, 2010 Addendum #1 to request for expert opinion

c) April 5, 2010 Addendum #2 to request for expert opinion

d) Correspondence with clerk Terry Nafisi, US District Court regarding concerns

of lack of integrity in court record at the US District Court, CACe) March 25, 2010 Complaint to Chief Judge Audrey Collins re: Integrity of

Records of the US District Court CAC in cases of Fine and Zernik

f) Notice of investigation by the US Court Counsel of allegations by Dr Zernik

regarding integrity of court records at the US District Court, CAC.

Appendix XIII: US Bankruptcy Court, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Three Recreated Letter

by CFC.

Appendix XIV: US Bankruptcy Court, Houston, Texas Memorandum Opinion re:

Litigation Practices of CFC.

Appendix XV: US Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General

a) Clarifications to Complaint to US DOJ-IG by Dr Zernik

b) Letter from the office of the Hon Dianne Feinstein re: Inquiry on OCC

c) Letter from the office of the Hon Dianne Feinstein re: Inquiry on Inspector

General.

d) Letter by Dr Zernik to 5 key Chairs of Congressional Committees asking them

to join the Hon Feinstein in inquiries on US DOJ-IG and Director of OCC.

Table of Authorities

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule24 1,2,3

Fay v Noia (1963) 2


5/34

iii

Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1968) 2US Rule Making Enabling Act, 28 USC 2071-7 2

General Order08-02, USDC CAC 9

California Code of Civil Procedure, 664 9California Code Civil Procedure, 664.5

California Government Code 69844.7California Rules of Court, Rule 1.2 9

California Rules of Court, Rule 10.500 9

County of Los Angeles, Local Rules of Court, Rule 3.0: 2

County of Los Angeles, Local Rules of Court, Rule 8.96 2


6/34

Fine v Sheriff(09-A827) 1/18

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH ZERNIKS NOTICE OF MOTION & VERIFIED MOTION TO

INTERVENE

TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES please notice Joseph Zernik (Zernik) Motion to

Intervene inRichard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County et al (09-A827), filed herein

pursuant to FRCivP, Rule 24.

Concomitantly filed under separate covers, with and in support of the Motion to Intervene:

1. Motion to Intervene;

2. Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer;

3. Request for Correction of Errors in US Supreme Court Records;

4. Request for Incorporation by Reference.

5. Appendices

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 15, 2010 Joseph Zernik

By: ______________________Joseph Zernik

[Proposed] IntervenorIn Pro Se

PO Box 256

La Verne California 91750

Tel: 323.515.4583Fax: 323.488.9697

E-Mail:[email protected]

[PROPOSED] INTERVENOR JOSEPH ZERNIKS MOTION TO INTERVENE

A. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. Zernik claims Intervention of Right pursuant to FRCivP 24(a)

Zernik claims timely Intervention of Right: Zernik was informed by Clerk Counsel Danny

Bickell on April 12, 2010, that filing was timely and permitted as long as the Petition was

pending. Zernik claims an interest that is the subject of the action, based on his allegations of

schemes employed in lower courts, as described in Appendix II, which were almost identical in


7/34


the case of Richard I Fine (Fine) pertaining to the ultimate Deprivation of Liberty and in the

case of Zernik pertaining to the ultimate Deprivation of the Right to Property. Through such

schemes, Zernik was forced in 2007 to leave his home, and his property was taken for private use

with no compensation at all. Such schemes are the core claims that Zernik asks the Honorable

Court to address in both cases, and pertaining to which the Court is requested to provide relief.

Furthermore, Zernik was recently subjected twice to arrests and jailing by Respondent Sheriff of

Los Angeles County (Sheriff), which upon review by this Court would be found to have failed

to conform with the fundamental requirements of the law, similar to treatment that Fine was and

is subjected to, to this date (Appendix IV).

Zernik further claims that no party adequately represents his interests. His core claims were not

brought up by Fine. It is believed that Fine was not cognizant of the detailed facts relative to

such schemes, and/or had no access to key records. Zernik therefore claims that he is so situated

that disposing of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect his

interest in fact to protect his fundamental Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

Beyond his individual interest, Zernik claims that his intervention is in the public interest and in

the interest of the furtherance of justice:

a) Instant Motion to Intervene documents various schemed, which were employed against

Petitioner Fine, and the alleged deprivation of various Fines Human, Constitutional, and

Civil Rights, which would lead this Honorable Court to conclude that there was and there

is no record to provide the foundation for the holding of Fine, which complied with the

fundamentals of the law, and that Fine was entitled to his immediate release, Fay v Noia

(1963). (Appendix III, Appendix xx, Appendix xx)

b) Instant Motion to Intervene documents the alleged deprivation of various Human,

Constitutional, and Civil Rights of numerous other inmates in the Los Angeles County

jails, who were and are held by Respondent Sheriff with no records that conform with the

fundamentals of the law to provide the foundation of their holding, Fay v Noia (1963).

(Appendix V)

c) Instant Motion to Intervene documents the alleged deprivation of various Human,

Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all 10 million residents of the County of Los Angeles,


8/34


California, relative to conditions instituted by Respondent LASC, where First

Amendment Right to Access Court Records to inspect and to copy pursuant to Nixon v

Warner Communications, Inc (1968), is routinely denied, where the Due Process Right to

Service and Notice is routinely waived by the Court, whereLocal Rules of Courtare

false and deliberately misleading particularly relative to entry of judgment Rule 3.0,

and Rule 8.96, failing to comply with California Law - California Code of Civil

Procedure, 664 & 664.5, and California Government Code 69844.7. In contrast,

Respondent LASC claims to keep no Book of Judgments, and although an Index of

Judgments was likely to be found upon discovery in its case management systems the

public is denied access to such Index of Judgments. Such condition left residents of the

County of Los Angeles exposed to various schemes by the Court relative to entry ofjudgment. (Appendix II, IX, X). The claims of fraud by Respondent LASC relative to

entry of judgment are core claims in both the case of Petitioner Fine and [Proposed]

Intervenor Zernik.

d) Instant Motion to Intervene also documents the alleged deprivation of various Human,

Constitutional, and Civil Rights of at the US courts, relative to the design and operations

of the public access (PACER) and case management (CM/ECF) systems; relative to

failure of such courts to establish the foundation of their new practice and procedure,

which are inherent in such systems in theLocal Rules of Courtpursuant to USRule

Making Enabling Act28 USC 2071-7; relative to denial of Public Access to Court

Records to inspect and to copy the authentication records NEFs (Notices of

Electronic Filings) and NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity); relative to denial of Notice

and Service of authentication records onpro se filers, and relative to alleged dishonest

design and operation of such systems in general. Further deprivation of rights in the US

courts documented in instant Motion pertain to false appearances at US Courts by

counsel who was not counsel of record, on behalf of large corporations or government, in

the cases of both Petitioner Fine and [Proposed] Intervenor Zernik. (Appendix XII)

Zernik further alleges that when he previously attempted to address his grievances in US courts

he was effectively denied access to the courts, through further dishonest schemes at the US

Courts, as outlined above. Therefore, if he is denied the right to intervene in instant action, he


9/34


may be deprived of the ability to protect his interests and his fundamental rights.

2. Alternatively, Zernik claims Permissive Intervention pursuant to FRCivP 24(b)

Zernik alternatively claims that the Court should allow Permissive Intervention, since Zernik

shares with Fine the main claims of abuse of rights by Respondent LASC, and failure of the US

District Court, Central District of California (USDC-CAC), and US Court of Appeals, 9th

Circuit (CCA9th), national tribunals for protection of rights, to protect his rights (Appendix

II). Therefore, there is commonality of law and of facts in his intervention and current actions

under the caption ofFine v Sheriff(09-A827).

3. Zernik fulfilled requirement for Notice and Service pursuant to FRCivP 24(c)

Zernik provided Notice of Intent to Intervene (Appendix I), and also attempted to Confer with

Respondents Sheriff and LASC. Sheriff refused to confer. No response was received from

LASC.

Zernik served instant Motion to Intervene on parties pursuant to the Service List, below, and a

Certificate of Service and Certificate of Mailing are provided herein.

Zernik claims that evidence provided in Appendix I and in Appendix VIII, and additional

discovery would lead this Court to rule that counsel that were listed in various records as counsel

for respondents Sheriff and LASC in instant action at the Supreme Court of the US, were not true

counsel of record for respective parties in the case at hand. Therefore, service was executed on

parties Sheriff and LASC themselves.

Therefore, the Clerk of the Court must not refuse to file instant Zerniks papers, even if not in the

form prescribed by FRCivP or by a local rule or practice.

5. Zernik should be permitted by the Court to intervene in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827).

WHEREFORE, Zernik respectfully requests that this Court:

1) Grant Zerniks Motion to Intervene;

2) Order the immediate release of Richard I Fine,

3) Order the immediate return of Zerniks lawful property to his possession, and


10/34


4) Grant Zernik additional and further relief pertaining to the rights of inmates held by

Respondent Sheriff- with no evidence of honest records to support their holding;

pertaining to the rights of residents of Los Angeles County relative to conduct of

Respondent LASC in denial of access to court records to inspect and to copy, and in

routine waiving of the right to notice and service, and pertaining to the rights of all US

residents through conduct of lower US courts relative to denial of access to

authentication records (NEFs, NDAs) in the courts public access systems (PACER),

pursuant to the claims and relief sought in the Motion and adjoining records, and as the

Honorable Court deems just and equitable.

B. CLAIMS

[Proposed] Intervenor Zerniks core claims are:

1) Respondent LASC: In Samaan v Zernik(SC087400), Zernik was and is the victim of

ongoing real estate through litigation, which is fraud in its entirety, and which was enabled

through false and deliberately misleading employment of the LASCs public access and case

management system and false court records. There simply is no way to explain the

fundaments facts pertaining to the litigation consistent with the conduct of a true litigation

under the LASC. (Appendix xx)

Such fraud in litigation was further advanced by false appearances by counsel for large

financial institutions. In Zerniks case, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc (CFC), and Bank of

America Corporation (BAC), have been appearing for the past 2.5 years under the false

party designation of Non Party, through false and deliberately misleading appearances by

counsel who is Bryan Cave, LLP, similar to schemes which were employed by CFC

elsewhere, and which were described in case ofBorrower William Alan Parsley (05-90374),

Dkt #258 (Appendix xx) - appearances by counsel who was not counsel of record, with no

communications with client clause. Additional schemes employed by Countrywide were

similar to those employed by the corporation in case ofBorrower Sharon Diane Hill (01-

22574), where Recreated Letters were filed as evidence. (Appendix XIII)


11/34


It is alleged that similar conduct by LASC, relative to litigation fraud, would be found upon

discovery also in the case of Fine inMarina v LA County (BS109420) in general, and

appearances of counsel for large corporation in particular.

Such schemes culminated in the cases of both Zernik and Fine in the issuance of judgments

by judges of the LASC, which were never entered in compliance with the law. Nevertheless,

such void Judgments, which were never effectual for any purpose, were enforced by LA

County agencies. (Appendix II, Appendix VII, VIII).

2) Respondent Sheriff and Los Angeles County agencies

a) Office of Registrar Recorder colluded with LASC in condut of the real estate fraud

against Zernik, through the recording of records that were opined as fraud by the highest

reputation fraud expert (Appendix III). Zerniks Human, Constitutional, and Civil Righst

were deprived. Zernik is therfore entitle to Equal Protection by US agencies, and return of his

lawful property to his possession.

b) Sheriffs Department colluded with LASC in conduct of alleged false imprisonment of

Fine, and jailing of Zernik (Appendix II, III, IV), through records that are alleged as fraud.

Fines Human, Constitutional, and Civil Righst were deprived. There simply is no records

that conforms with the fundamentals of the law to provide the foundation for his holding.

Fine is therfore entitle to his immediate release, Fay v Noia (1963). Appendix xx Appendix

xx

c) Sheriffs Department was also used by the LASC to engage in threat of force on Zernik,

unlawful but credible, to take his property for private use, with no compensation at all, and

with no legal foundation for such conduct. (Appendix VIII)

3) USDC-CACD - inZernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) the US District Court failed to

protect Zerniks rights, and such conduct was enabled through false and deliberatelymisleading employment of the courts public access and case management system, false court

records, false appearances by counsel for large corporations and for the LASC. Such conduct

almost exactly paralleled the treatment of Fine in Fine v Sheriff(2:09-cv-01914) at the US

District Court (Appendix I, XI, XII).


12/34


4) CCA9th - InZernik v US District Court, CAC(08-72714) the Court failed to protect his

rights. Such conduct was enabled through false and deliberately misleading employment of

the courts public access and case management systems, and false court records. Such conduct

almost exactly paralleled the treatment of Fine in Fine v Sheriff(09-71692) and Fine v Sheriff

(09-56073)) (Appendix I, XII).

5) The common conduct in all three courts named above included:

a. Installation of public access and case management systems, which amounted to sea

change in operations of the courts, without founding such changes in Rules of Courts

pursuant to USRule Making Enabling Act 28 USC 2071-7.

b. Denial of Access to Court Records to inspect and to copy to key litigation records in

the case management systems, including but not limited to the Registers of Actions

(California civil docket). When Zernik was allowed limited access to his Register of

Actions in his case, he discovered there evidence of alleged racketeering activity by

Respondent LASC and CFC/BAC. (Appendix IX) In Zerniks action at the USDC-CAC,

Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01914), the LASC through false appearance by false

counsel, entered false records instead of the true Register of Actions, and the USDC-

CAC refused to rule on Zerniks objections and OSC Contempt, relative to such conduct.

No access at all was allowed to the Register of Actions of Fine inMarina v LA County

(BS109420) (Appendix X). The review of Fines habeas corpus at the USDC-CAC and

related actions at CCA9th were all incredibly conducted absent such foundation record. It

is alleged that upon discovery of the Register of Actions inMarina v LA County

(BS109420), evidence would be found that such litigation was never a true matter

litigated under the LASC.

c. Denial of Notice and Service, and/or false Notice and Service by the Courts. At the

LASC, the Court routinely inserted into court files minutes, orders, and judgments that

were not entered in compliance with the law, and which were never adequately served

and noticed. At the USDC-CAC, pro se filers Zernik and Fine were subjected to false

notice and service with invalid NEFs lacking the digital Stamp Court. CCA9th

served orders, which were unsigned, with no authentication records (NDAs) at all.


13/34


Nevertheless such records were listed by USDC-CAC in the PACER docket as entered

through transactions executed by a person who was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk.

The Clerk of the USDC-CAC, for months refuses to answer simple questions regarding

the dockets in these cases. Complaint was filed with the Chief Judge, and investigation

regarding integrity of such litigations at the USDC-CAC was instituted. (Appendix XII)

d. Appearances of false counsel permitted by the courts. (Appendix XI)

6) The Sheriffs Department of LA County likewise implemented a public access and case

management systems that permit the holding of numerous persons with no records to provide

the foundation for the holding, which conform with the fundamentals of the law. (Appendix

III, IV, V)

C. CASE STATUS

The only litigation that Zernik is purported to be currently involved in is Samaan v Zernik

(SC087400) at LASC. It is claimed that upon review of the matter, this Court would conclude

that such caption was never a true court action of LASC. None of the conduct in the purported

litigation conformed with the law of California and/or the US.

D.[PROPOSED] INTERVENOR ENTERS HIS REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION AND

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR PRAYS this honorable Court issue

equitable relief as follows:

1. Declaratory relief that Respondent LASC March 4, 2009 Oder and Judgment of Contempt

re: Richard I Fine inMarina v LA County (BS109400) was void, not voidable.

2. Declaratory relief that Respondent LASC August 9, 2007 Judgment, and November 9, 2007

Order Appointing David Pasternak Receiver in Samaan v Zernik(SC08700) were both void,

not voidable.

3. Declaratory relief that March 4, 2009 Remand/Removal Order generated by Respondent

LASC, and arrest and booking records that were generated by Respondent Sheriff pertaining

to Richard I Fine were fraud on their face.

4. Declaratory relief that conveyance of title executed on behalf of Respondent LASC on

Zerniks property at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills California, 90212 was fraud on its

face, as opined by highly decorated fraud expert, FBI veteran James Wedick.


14/34


5. Order Respondent Sheriff to immediately release Petitioner Richard I Fine.

6. Ordedr Respondent Sheriff to immediately return Intervenor Joseph Zerniks property at

320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212 to his possession.

7. Declaratory relief that the public access and case management systems, which were

implemented by Respondent Sheriff are false and deliberately misleading.

8. Order Respondent Sheriff to implement public access and case management systsems for

the Los Angeles jails, which were subjected to publicly accountable validation (certified,

functional logic verification).

9. Declaratory relief that the the public access and case management systems, which were

implemented by Respondent LASAC are false and deliberately misleading.

10. Order Respondent LASC to implement public access and case management systsems in thecourts, which were subjected to publicly accountable validation (certified, functional logic

verification).

11. Order Respondent LASC to respect First Amdndement Rights to Access Court Records

to inspect and to copy.

12. Order Respondent LASC to respect Due Process Rights for Notice and Service of all

Court minutes, orders and judgments, and cease the practice of waiving such rights of

parties in litigations.

13. Order Respondent LASC to implement a Book of Judgments, pursuant to Califonria Code,

which is a public record, to which public access must be allowed.

14. Order Respondent LASC to implement an Index of All Cases, Registers of Actions, and

Caledar of the Courts, that are true and correct, and where public access is allowed, as

required by California and US Law.

15. Order Respondent LASC to update its Local Rules of Court to reflect the true procedures

and practices of the Court today.

16. Enter mandate to lower US courts - to implement public access and case management

systems in the courts, which were subjected to publicly accountable validation (certified,

functional logic verification), and were honestly founded in the Local Rules of Court.


15/34


17. Enter mandate to lower US Courts to respect First Amendment Rights to Access Court

Records to inspect and to copy including, but not limited to authentication records in

CM/ECF (NEFs and NDAs).

18. Enter mandate to lower US Courts to respect Due Process Rights for Notice and Service

particularly ofpro se filers, who must be served all authentication records received by

other parties in litigation, in a manner that does not deprive pro se filers of any information

inherent in such records.

19. Enter mandate to lower US Courts to respect theRule Making Enabling Actand update

their local Rules of Court to reflect the changes in court practice and procedure related to

electronic public access and case management systems.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joseph Zernik respectfully asks the Honorable Court to granthim such declaratory, injunctive, mandate and other relief as it deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted on April 15, 2010 by:

Joseph Zernik

By: _______________________________

[Proposed] Intervenor

In Pro Se

PO Box 256

La Verne California 91750Tel: 323.515.4583

Fax: 323.488.9697


CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEI certify that the MOTION TO INTERVENE is proportionately spaced, has a type face of 12

points, and contains 3,224 words according to the Word 2000, the word processing system on

which it was prepared. The words counted are those on pages 1-10, excluding this Certificate ofCompliance.

Executed on this date, April 15, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California

Joseph Zernik


16/34


By: ______________

JOSEPH ZERNIK

1853 Foothill Blvd.

Tel: 323.515.4583Fax: 323.488.9697


STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION

Motion to Intervene

I, Joseph Zernik wrote and read instant Motion to Intervene, and I know the content thereof to

be true and correct, it is true and correct based on my own personal knowledge, except as to

those matters therein stated as based upon information and belief, and as to to those matters, I

believe them to be true and correct as well.

I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant

to the laws of California and the United States.

Executed here in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, on this 15th day in April, 2010.

____________________

Joseph Zernik

PROOF OF SERVICE

&

CERTIFICATES OF MAILING AND/OR E-MAILING

I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as:Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene

on Respondents in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed

envelope, with postage fully prepaid in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:

1) Richard I Fine Petitioner

Inmate RICHARD I. FINE (1824367)


17/34


LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL450 Bauchet St.

Los Angeles, CA 90012

2) Sheriff of Los Angeles County -Respondent

Leroy D Baca, Sheriff

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

4700 Ramona Blvd.Monterey Park, CA 91754

Phone: 323 526 5000

Fax: Email: "Baca, Leroy D."

3) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe -

RespondentsJohn A Clarke, Clerk/Executive Officer

Stanley Mosk Courthouse111 North Hill Street


Phone 213 974 5401

Fax: 213 621 7952Email:

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United

States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true andcorrect.

Executed this date, April 15, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California

Joseph H Zernik

By: ______________

JOSEPH H ZERNIK

1853 Foothill Blvd


Fax: 323.488.9697



18/34


Reserved for certificates of mailing by USPS, to be added in copy filed with the Court.


19/34

Case No 09-A827

IN THE


______________

RICHARD I. FINE,

Petitioner,

v.


Respondent.

______________



REQUEST FOR LENIENCE BY PRO SE FILER

JOSEPH ZERNIK

In Pro Se

1853 Foothill Blvd

La Verne, CA

Mail:PO Box 526

La Verne, CA 91750Phone:323.515.4583Fax: 323.488.9697

Email


20/34

Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1/6

[PROPOSED] INTERVENORS VERIFIED REQUEST FOR LENIENCE AS PRO SE

FILER

Concomitantly filed under separate covers, with and in support of the Motion to Intervene:





5. Appendices

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO PARTIES: [Proposed] Intervenor JosephZernik herein requests the Court for Lenience as pro se filer.

1. United States law provides lenience for pro se filers.

[Proposed] Intervenor Zernik requests the Courts lenience for his "inartful pleading",1

as

accorded by US law to pro se filers. In particular, Pro Se Filer Zernik is not qualified in assessing

the validity of legal theories. He therefore asks the Court to ignore any irrelevant or erroneous

legal theory that he might claim, and to do take into consideration the facts themselves, as well

as the claims, if they can be supported by some other valid legal theory. 2

2. Sections of the code were often left unspecified.

For such reasons routine use was made in the Motion to Intervene and adjoining records of

language implying violations of the law, without spelling out the specific section of the code.

3. Conduct amounting to racketeering activity pursuant to 18 USC 1961, by Respondent

LASC was alleged, but never fully elaborated.

[Proposed] Intervenor Zernik alleges that the facts and the claims detailed in his Motion to

Intervene, adjoining papers, and additional evidence not directly relevant to the case at hand,

should be sufficient to support criminal RICO investigation, and probably also prosecution, of

various parties. The essence of such racketeering was in concerted obstruction/ perversion/

1Ericson v Pardus et al, US Supreme Crt, June 4, 2007 (067317); 551 US (2007)

2Haddock v California Board of Dental Examiners, US Crt App 9th Circ, Nov 26, 1985; 777 F.2d

462


21/34


22/34


By: ______________JOSEPH H ZERNIK

In Pro Se

[Proposed] Intervenor]PO Box 256


Tel: 323.515.4583Fax: 323.488.9697


CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the Request for Lenience is proportionately spaced, has a type face of 12

points, and contains 790 words according to the Word 2000, the word processing system on

which it was prepared. The words counted are those on pages 1-3, excluding this Certificate of

Compliance.


Joseph Zernik

By: ______________

JOSEPH ZERNIK

1853 Foothill Blvd.

Tel: 323.515.4583Fax: 323.488.9697


STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION[PROPOSED] INTERVENORS VERIFIED REQUEST FOR LINIENCE AS PRO SE FILER

I, the undersigned, Joseph Zernik, wrote and read instant [Proposed] Intervenors Verified

Request For Lenience As Pro Se Filer, and I know the content thereof to be true and correct, it is

true and correct based on my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated


23/34


as based upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and

correct as well.

I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant

to the laws of the United States.

Executed here in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, on this 15th day in April, 2010.

____________________

Joseph Zernik

PROOF OF SERVICE

&CERTIFICATES OF MAILING AND/OR E-MAILING

I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as: Request for Lenience asPro Se Filer on Respondents in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was

enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid in the United States Mail, addressed asfollows:


Inmate RICHARD I. FINE (1824367)LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL450 Bauchet St.


2) Sheriff of Los Angeles County -RespondentLeroy D Baca, Sheriff



Phone: 323 526 5000

Fax: Email: "Baca, Leroy D."


Respondents

John A Clarke, Clerk/Executive Officer

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

111 North Hill Street


24/34



Phone 213 974 5401Fax: 213 621 7952

Email:


States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true andcorrect.


Joseph H Zernik

By: ______________

JOSEPH H ZERNIK

1853 Foothill Blvd


Fax: 323.488.9697



25/34

Case No 09-A827

IN THE


______________

RICHARD I. FINE,

Petitioner,

v.


Respondent.

______________



REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT OF THE US

JOSEPH ZERNIK

In Pro Se

1853 Foothill Blvd

La Verne, CA

Mail: PO Box 526

La Verne, CA 91750

Phone:323.515.4583

Fax: 323.488.9697Email


26/34


[PROPOSED] INTERVENORS REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE US

Concomitantly filed under separate faces:



3. Request for Correction in US Supreme Court Records;


5. Appendix

TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES: [Proposed] Intervenor Joseph Zernik herein requests that

the Court correct records of the Supreme Court of the US, in the case at hand, as detailed herein.

1. The dockets and papers under case number 09-A827 are inconsistent relative to case

caption.

The case caption in the case at hand is inconsistently listed in Court records. [Proposed]

Intervenor followed in this respect the caption used by Petitioner Fine.

2. Court records are inconsistent relative to denial, or lack thereof, of instant Petition on

March 12, 2010, by Association Justice, the Honorable Anthony Kennedy.

Local Rules of Court state that such denial had to be inscribed on the face of the Application.

Copy of the Application in case 09-A827, obtained from office of the Clerk of the Supreme

Court of the US file by [Proposed] Intervenor, showed no such inscription on the face of the

Application. Likewise, no denial was listed among the orders and rulings of the Court listed

online on or about March 12, 2010. Yet the docket, as publicly accessible online, stated that

the Application was denied on March 12, 2010.

3. Attorney Paul Beach was listed as Counsel for Respondent Sheriff.

It is alleged that evidence provided in Appendix I, and additional discovery would show that

Paul Beach was never Counsel of Record for Respondent Sheriff of Los Angeles County in

instant Application by Richard I Fine. Instead, it is alleged that additional discovery would


27/34


reveal that he was part of a scheme of counsel who was not counsel of records with no

communications with client clause, as described by the Hon Jeff Bohm in Appendix XIV.

Evidence is presented in the Motion to Intervene and in Appendix XI that such was the case also

for Attorney Kevin McCormick, who was represented as counsel for Judge David Yaffe and the

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

4. Therefore, the Court is respectfully requested to correct the records as the Court deems fit.



By: ______________________Joseph Zernik

PO Box 256


Tel: 323.515.4583Fax: 323.488.9697



I certify that the Request for Corrections in Court Records is proportionately spaced, has atype face of 12 points, and contains 405 words according to the Word 2000, the word processing

system on which it was prepared. The words counted are those on pages 1-2, excluding this

Certificate of Compliance.


Joseph Zernik

By: ______________

JOSEPH ZERNIK1853 Foothill Blvd.

Tel: 323.515.4583

Fax: 323.488.9697E-Mail:[email protected]


28/34


PROOF OF SERVICE

&

CERTIFICATES OF MAILING AND/OR E-MAILING

I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as:

Request for Correction of Court Records

on Respondents in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealedenvelope, with postage fully prepaid in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:


Inmate RICHARD I. FINE (1824367)



2) Sheriff of Los Angeles County -Respondent

Leroy D Baca, Sheriff

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department4700 Ramona Blvd.

Monterey Park, CA 91754

Phone: 323 526 5000Fax:

Email: "Baca, Leroy D."


Respondents

John A Clarke, Clerk/Executive Officer

Stanley Mosk Courthouse111 North Hill Street


Phone 213 974 5401Fax: 213 621 7952

Email:


States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and

correct.


29/34



Joseph H Zernik

By: ______________

JOSEPH H ZERNIK

1853 Foothill BlvdLa Verne California 91750

Tel: 323.515.4583



30/34

Case No 09-A827

IN THE


______________

RICHARD I. FINE,

Petitioner,

v.


Respondent.

______________



REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

JOSEPH ZERNIK

In Pro Se

1853 Foothill Blvd

La Verne, CA

Mail: PO Box 526

La Verne, CA 91750

Phone:323.515.4583

Fax: 323.488.9697Email


31/34


[PROPOSED] INTERVENORS REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF

DOCKETS AND RECORDS OF OTHER CASES AT THE US COURTS

Concomitantly filed under separate faces:





5. Appendices

TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES: [Proposed] Intervenor Joseph Zernik herein requests that

the Court permit incorporation by reference of the dockets and papers of other cases in US

Courts, as detailed herein.

1. The dockets and papers of the captions, where incorporation is requested, include crucial

evidence for instant Motion to Intervene.

(a) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) - at the US District Court, Central District of

California, and

(b) Fine v Sheriff(2:09-cv-01914) -

at the US District Court, Central District of California

(c) Zernik v USDC-CAC(08-72714) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

(d) Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th

Circuit

(e) Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th

Circuit

(f) Borrower William Alan Parsley (05-90374) - at the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern

District of Texas, Houston. In particular: Dkt #248, March 5, 2008 Memorandum

Opinion describing fraudulent litigation practices by CFC, and Dkt #256-260 filings

by Zernik describing in details the alleged fraud in litigations in Los Angeles County,

which resulted in real estate fraud, as opined by highly decorated fraud expert James

Wedick.

(g)Borrower Sharon Dianne Hill (01-22574) - at the US Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District

of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh.


32/34


Relative to the records in all cases request is for incorporation by reference not only of the

PACER records, which are publicly accessible, but of all other records that are accessible to the

Court in CM/ECF, including, but not limited to authentication records that are NEFs (Notices of

Electronic Filings) and/or NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity), where the public is denied access.

Relative to records in (a) through (e), where incorporation is requested by reference, such request

was never intended to imply that such records were honest, valid, and effectual court records. On

the contrary, such are records are mostly deemed as false and deliberately misleading court

records, and are incorporated in order to allow this Court to review such allegations.



By: ______________________Joseph Zernik

PO Box 256


Tel: 323.515.4583Fax: 323.488.9697



I certify that the Request for Incorporation by Reference is proportionately spaced, has a type

face of 12 points, and contains 359 words according to the Word 2000, the word processing

system on which it was prepared. The words counted are those on pages 1-2, excluding this

Certificate of Compliance.


Joseph Zernik

By: ______________

JOSEPH ZERNIK1853 Foothill Blvd.

Tel: 323.515.4583


33/34


Fax: 323.488.9697


PROOF OF SERVICE

&CERTIFICATES OF MAILING AND/OR E-MAILING

I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as:

Request for Incorporation by Referenceon Respondents in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed

envelope, with postage fully prepaid in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:

1) Richard I Fine PetitionerInmate RICHARD I. FINE (1824367)



2) Sheriff of Los Angeles County -RespondentLeroy D Baca, Sheriff



Phone: 323 526 5000Fax: Email: "Baca, Leroy D."


RespondentsJohn A Clarke, Clerk/Executive Officer

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

111 North Hill StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Phone 213 974 5401

Fax: 213 621 7952Email:


States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and

correct.


34/34



Joseph H Zernik

By: ______________

JOSEPH H ZERNIK

1853 Foothill BlvdLa Verne California 91750

Tel: 323.515.4583


Documents

10-04-15 Fine v Sheriff (09 A827) Press Release US Supreme Court Motion to Intervene and Support Requests s